On Eliot Spitzer

Some people have argued that Eliot Spitzer, the New York Governor who just resigned over a prostitution scandal, should be cut some slack because "prostitution is a victimless crime." Ordinarily, I would sympathize with this point of view. I strongly believe in the libertarian concept that something should be criminalized only if it hurts someone. But this is different. Why?

It is just this — Spitzer himself, as attorney general, prosecuted prostitution rings. Spitzer prosecuted people for money laundering who did some of the same things he did to hide his purchases of prostitutes' services. In short, he himself acted toward others as if the things he is guilty of are reprehensible. So it is poetic justice that he was the one to suffer.

Modified approval voting

benham said:

What do you think of Range with a 0,1,2 ballot (or Approval with a voter option
to "half-approve", or Approval-minus-Disapproval with a voter option to do
neither)?

This is fine in my estimation. My only objection to Approval Voting is that one cannot separate disapproval from neutral, and this solves the problem. Actually, I have in the past favored just such an option as benham's "Approval-minus-Disapproval with a voter option to do neither."

Calculations of Bayesian regret

Broken Ladder referred to the "millions" of simulated elections in Smith's calculations. But any type of calculation of this kind is going to depend on the algorithm that generates the data. And a different algorithm might generate a different set of data.

I do not mean to denigrate Smith's experiment. It performed a worthwhile function. But it is still an estimate of the validity of these different electoral systems, not a mathematical demonstration, and has to be considered in that category. Even so, I think the experiment really does show how much better range voting is than any of the alternative systems. But Smith himself would not (I imagine) claim those numbers would have perfect validity in all cases.

"Leaving me cold"

I originally wrote:

I've never been very happy with the way we vote here, using plurality or "first-past-the-post" voting, but most of the proposals I've seen for reform leave me cold.

Apparently "benham" thought I was referring to IRV ("instant runoff voting," usually referred to in older literature as "alternative vote") and asked what about that system leaves me cold. Actually, in a system such as Australia's, where there are really only two parties that count (actually three, but the Liberal and National parties are so closely aligned that they can be considered one party), I think it works rather well. If you like a minor party, you can give it your first preference, then save your second preference for a major-party candidate and actually make a difference to the voting result. I'm not so sure it works as well if you have a number of different parties which agree on some issues and disagree on others, but I've never seen a place other than Australia that uses it (it's been adopted in some cities in the USA, but so recently that the results of the experiment haven't been seen).

Actually, the systems that "leave me cold" meant approval voting, the Borda Count, and Condorcet voting, and there will probably be further posts of mine addressing these specifically.

On Barack Obama

Broken Ladder wrote:

For instance, it appears that Barack Obama is going to be our next President (thank god almighty). And an online Range Voting mock election I held, that began about 16 months ago, has Barack Obama winning among about 5400 voters. And looking at the overall results, it's clear that the "net roots" make vastly more intelligent candidate choices than the average voter. So there's a very good chance that Obama really is the social utility maximizer -- and yet he's probably going to win with our incredibly horrible voting method. Some times you just get lucky.

I hope to God he is wrong. Obama is just the sort of radical we cannot survive. On top of that, he is so inexperienced that he could just make a hash of our whole government. If we had a range voting system, he'd get the lowest possible rating from me. But I think by November the American people will find out just how much of a dangerous radical he is, and consign him to the same dustbin of history that George McGovern inhabits. Sure, he's leading in the polls, but so was Michael Dukakis (by even more!) at points in the 1988 campaign.

What a surprise!

This blog has been around for a little over 2 years — my first postings were dated February 10, 2006. And up until this week, it's looked as if almost nobody ever looked at it — there were so few comments that I sometimes wondered whether anyone saw my words. I posted on a lot of controversial topics, from Iraq to gun control and intelligent design, yet got almost no response.

Then, almost as a throwaway, I made a post about a topic that seems almost too technical for most people to care: range voting. It was a digression from the usual topics of discussion here. And all of a sudden, to that one post I have gotten more responses than to the whole two years of previous posts, several times over! What a surprise!

Because there are so many comments that address a number of different aspects of this topic, I'm going to split up my discussion into several posts today, each responding to something different. But thank you all for coming in here to discuss it.

And now for a digression...

Taking a bit of a break from the 2008 election, I've just discovered a fascinating site. I've never been very happy with the way we vote here, using plurality or "first-past-the-post" voting, but most of the proposals I've seen for reform leave me cold. In particular, I'm rather hostile to the "approval voting" system, where you vote for all the candidates you can support, but with no way to distinguish between someone you really don't like and someone you're unfamiliar with. Now I've found just the system that fills the bill; it's called "range voting." You can rate each candidate, something like the way we rate books or CDs on Amazon, and the highest total rating wins. See the site here.

More on the McCain/Obama difference

Yesterday I saw a newspaper with a poll result that indicates that more Democrats are inclined to support McCain than Republicans to support Obama. This shouldn't be too surprising. McCain is more moderate than many Republicans; this is in fact why some of the more extreme Republicans had some trouble supporting him. By contrast, Obama is more extreme than many Democrats, and should repel those Republicans whose vote Obama might want to court.

Yet other polls show Obama winning an election against McCain — at least if the election were to be held right now. This does worry me a bit, but of course Michael Dukakis was leading in the polls at one point in the 1988 election! So, given that November is a long way off, I can't be too worried. I think that as soon as the people realize how radical Obama is, he will suffer the same fate that Dukakis, and George McGovern in 1972, did.

I am married to a woman who is enrolled as a Democrat, though she is more conservative than many Democrats are and closer to me politically than one might think based on party affiliation. She is, at the moment, inclined to vote for McCain — though it appears that she still wants to look at the candidates some more before committing to any one. Yet I cannot see, from anything she's said, much likeliness that she might prefer Obama to McCain in the end — I just wish she'd make up her mind.

McCain vs. ... who?

Yesterday, John McCain got the necessary number of delegates to be sure of the nomination, though who the Democrats will nominate is still up in the air. They've got it down to two candidates, but both of them are pretty much out of the bounds of reason. For on the one hand, we have Barack Obama, who made the strange comment that he would immediately withdraw troups from Iraq, but "might have to send them back in if Al-Qaeda establishes a base" (as if they would up and leave if we did, so they'd have to re-enter Iraq to establish a base; of course, McCain immediately said that he had news for Obama, that Al-Qaeda was in Iraq; but I doubt that Obama was so foolish as to think they weren't, so that is why I figure he must think they would leave Iraq if we did — fat chance!) On the other hand, we have Hillary Clinton, who asked the by-now-famous question as to who we'd rather have answering the red phone at 3 in the morning with a call coming in about some crisis (as if anyone seriously could answer that question any way but "John McCain"!)

Well, McCain has to equip himself to run against whichever one runs against him. But either way, I can't think he has to convince me.

One more comment on Giuliani's endorsement of McCain

It was obvious to me that Rudy Giuliani, on losing Florida, would endorse John McCain. After all (see this article, in which Giuliani says: "I think I made it clear during a debate that if I had not been running, I would be supporting John McCain. So I'm not running, and I'm supporting John McCain and he is far away the best person to be the commander in chief of the United States.") They have generally appealed to the same kind of moderate Republican (such as myself). And so I have joined him (and Governor Schwarzenegger of California, whom I also admire) in endorsing John McCain.

Romney's big blunder

In a recent debate, Mitt Romney pointed out that the US has generally chosen as its Presidents people with experience as state governors (executives who run things) rather than Senators (legislators). Of course, he failed to acknowledge that John McCain has been other things besides a Senator, and in particular a high officer in the Navy. And the US has often chosen high military officers for President. (In fact, from the very beginning, namely George Washington. But of course, one can add Andrew Jackson and Dwight Eisenhower, as well as a lot of others less highly regarded. True, they were all Army, not Navy, but it takes the same kind of leadership skills to be a high Naval officer as an equally-high Army officer.)

Isn't it obvious that such people as Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who have served as chief executives of populous political subdivisions (after all, regarding Giuliani, New York City has more people than many states!) would not support someone they felt could not handle the job?

John McCain for President!

The result of yesterday's Florida primary is clear. Rudy Giuliani, my favorite among the candidates, is out. The word is that he will drop out and endorse McCain. And I am following him.

As I've said on a few occasions here, McCain is a perfectly acceptable candidate to me. It's only that I preferred Giuliani. But if Giuliani can't make it, I'll be happy to support McCain.

McCain's candidacy resembles John Kerry's four years ago: at the very beginning of the campaign cycle, he was favored. But as the campaign progressed, others took the lead; among the Democrats last time, predominantly John Dean; among this year's Republicans, first Giuliani, later Huckabee and Romney. But with the early contests (as early as Iowa for those Democrats; just afterward for this year's Republicans), they got the lead back. And like Kerry, McCain is now in a great position to be nominated.

But there are some differences, which will surface in the run-up to the November general election. Last time, Kerry represented the extreme-left wing of his party. McCain, by contrast, is a moderate-conservative, able to gain votes from more moderate members of the opposite party. Just about no Republican would support Kerry four years ago; this time, many Democrats will support McCain (my wife having already said she may!), and the fact that Joe Lieberman is going to campaign for him will help that.

In short, I cannot really be too unhappy at the way things are turning out. The Republicans will nominate John McCain, a proven leader, a man who can work with politicians of both parties, and a man with the experience it takes to be President of the United States. And though Giuliani was my first preference, McCain is a great second choice. I heartily endorse John S. McCain, III for the 2008 presidential election.

Change!

All the Democrats (and it would seem Mitt Romney among the Republicans, as well) seem to be portraying themselves as the candidate to bring change to this country. But is this a good thing?

First, is there so much wrong with this country that needs to be changed? I'm pretty happy with the situation as it is. I would be less likely to vote for a candidate that will change things than for one who will preserve things the way they are. But, of course, that is what conservatism is all about, and I'm rather conservative in many ways.

And second, who's to say that a change will be for the better? A lot of ways that we could change would be major disasters. And many would at least make things somewhat worse. I'm sure that the advent of Hitler in Germany, Stalin in Russia, and Pol Pot in Cambodia brought many changes, but most Germans, Russians, and Cambodians were worse off with those changes than they had been before.

So what's so great about change?

After New Hampshire

This morning, while I was having a tea and a pastry at a local Starbucks, I heard a woman loudly advocating Mike Huckabee's candidacy. Not, as one might think, because of his “Christian leadership” position, but mainly because he was pro-gun! Of course, this only underscores the problems with Huckabee — it would be hard to find an issue on which Huckabee and I are on the same side. (He did integrate a congregation where he was a preacher; I guess that's one good thing that could be said about Mike Huckabee.)

But looking at the New Hampshire results, it is good to see that they provide a retreat from the craziness of Iowa. New Hampshire tends to have a libertarian mindset; after all, the state motto is “Live Free or Die.” And Huckabee's positions are pretty far from libertarianism. So although my favorite candidate, Rudy Giuliani, didn't do very well there (but then, he hadn't bothered to campaign there!) the candidate who did win, John McCain, is someone I consider a good one. (McCain is probably my second choice, actually.) So I'm not unhappy with the New Hampshire results. (And they probably sink Mitt Romney's candidacy, though he still could help his chances in Michigan.)

Over on the Democratic side, New Hampshire followed its usual practice of confounding the experts. Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama, even though Obama's win in Iowa propelled him into the public spotlight and Clinton's tears might have ended serious consideration of her candidacy. Of course, since I like neither of the two, I don't really care that much about who won that contest.

Now on to the next state!

The Huckabee threat to the Republican Party

The more I contemplate the possibility of Mike Huckabee being nominated by the Republican Party, the more it troubles me. First of all, Huckabee represents the exact opposite of the kind of Republicanism I consider my own political direction. He is socially conservative (favoring policies that tend to establish Christianity as official policy, and intolerant to such people as the gay population) and economically liberal (someone who raised taxes in his home state, and seems to favor using taxation as a redistributive policy). I have always maintained that the kind of direction the Republican party should take is the reverse: socially liberal (inclusive toward all kinds of religions and social lifestyles) and economically conservative (reducing taxes and taking the government out of the economy except as necessary).

I would, of course, most prefer a Giuliani nomination. I could certainly live with McCain, who is a little further from me politically, but close enough for comfort. Even Mitt Romney – someone I wonder about, sometimes, because of his reversals on key issues – would get my vote against any Democrat who could be nominated. But if Mike Huckabee gets nominated, I can only hope that another Mike, Mayor Bloomberg of New York, makes the independent run some people think he has in mind. In a three-way race with Huckabee, Bloomberg, and any Democrat, Bloomberg gets my vote. In a two-way race with Huckabee and any Democrat, who knows what I would do? I certainly dread the prospect.

The institutionalization of Christmas

Tomorrow is the day when those of us who are not Christians really see ourselves as a minority. The rest of the year, we are Americans, just like all the other citizens of this country. But tomorrow, the celebration of the birth of the founder of the Christian religion, we are outsiders, our sensibilities being ignored by everyone in power.

Libraries, museums, and all other city, county, state, and national Government buildings (except for emergency facilities) will be closed. The post offices will have been selling Christmas stamps for the past few weeks; postal clerks may even be shocked if you tell them you don't want Christmas stamps (I remember one year going to a post office which had nothing but Christmas stamps! I had to settle for lower-denomination stamps that I could combine to make the then-current postal rate!) Oh yes, they have had, in recent years, Chanukah and Eid stamps as well, but there are never enough variations to account for all the various religious beliefs in this pluralistic country, not to mention atheists and agnostics. Why not just let the Government ignore all the various beliefs and keep to its secular business?

One runs into people who claim that “no establishment of religion” in our First Amendment means the government cannot favor one Christian denomination over others, not realizing that Christianity is just one religion among many. I can not fathom this point of view. Giving special preference to Christianity over Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, or even atheism is just as much establishing a particular religion as taxing us to support the Episcopal Church would be.

Fifty-five years ago, I was subjected to a humiliating treatment by my own teachers in public school as a 10-year-old boy because of my religion. I declared that I could not sing songs with words like “Oh come, let us adore Him, Christ the Lord.” Up until that time, my music teacher had treated me as a “teacher's pet” because I had a good singing voice. From that point on, she conspired with another teacher to make things as hard for me as possible. So I say what I am saying here from a basis of experience.

Nobody is advocating a policy such as that in Saudi Arabia where a person can be criminally prosecuted for selling Christmas cards. Rather, let Christians freely celebrate Christmas in their homes and churches (and other religions' adherents freely celebrate their own religious holidays in their own homes and places of worship) but let the Government stay out of these celebrations and be resolutely secular and neutral.

A happy December 25th to all. But please don't wish me a “merry Christmas.” Please don't wish anyone a “merry Christmas” unless you know they are a Christian.

I wish I could believe Mitt Romney!

Today the New York Times published an interview with Mitt Romney, in which he tries to describe himself as a "George Romney Republican." Would that this were so! George Romney, Mitt's father, would have made a great President; I supported him many years ago. But George Romney was a clearly moderate Republican, opposed to the right-wing extremism that captured the nomination for Barry Goldwater. Mitt Romney, by contrast, seems bound to woo this year's right-wing extremists, even rejecting moderate, pragmatic positions he claimed to have when he was running for office in Massachusetts. Now, whatever Mitt Romney's positions are, we can't be clear; he's been on both sides of a lot of issues. If he's really a George Romney Republican, he should repudiate the hard-right positions he's been taking recently; he won't do that, however, because that's where his support is coming from, it seems. So what is Mitt Romney, really?

New Jersey and the death penalty

In New Jersey, they just signed into law a new bill, ending the death penalty in the state. Obviously, those people who feel the death penalty is inhumane are applauding. I do not join them. Of course, in practical terms this act does nothing — New Jersey has not executed anyone in years, and Governor Corzine recently commuted the sentences of everyone on New Jersey's death row. But what this tells the world is that the lives of convicted murderers are worth more than those of their victims.

I feel that punishment should be commensurate with the crime. I would never wish to see the death penalty meted out for any crime short of murder. But no punishment short of the death penalty is appropriate for anyone who deliberately takes the life of an innocent person.

A definite condemnation of the New Jersey legislature and governor is in order.

Are Mormons Christians? Should anyone care?

Lately, people have been raising the question, “Are Mormons Christians?” Obviously, this really depends on what your definition of a “Christian” is. Many Protestants do not consider Roman Catholics to be Christians. On the other hand, I've seen Catholics consider themselves the only true Christians. Obviously, if you define a “Christian” as a follower of Jesus of Nazareth (termed “Christ” by his supporters) then it comes down to your own definition of what Jesus' religious beliefs were. And certainly, by their lights, Mormons are Christians; they actually call their church “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.”

But then, my question is “Should anyone care?” After all, we have a Constitution which clearly states (Art. VI): “... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” And therefore, whether Mitt Romney (for he is the only Mormon being considered by people asking that question) is qualified for the Presidency cannot be related to the answer to this question. And I say this, despite the fact that I'm rather cool to Romney for other reasons (see earlier posts, specifically my July 14 post).

Really, the people raising the question “Are Mormons Christians?" are bigots if they mean to imply that only Christians can be President, and irrelevant if they do not.

Thus my response: “Should anyone care?”

Panic among Giuliani's "social conservative" opponents?

Today I saw a newspaper article talking about "panic" among the "social conservatives" afraid of a Giuliani nomination. (See http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071201/NATION/112010053/1001.) Nothing could make me happier. It is "social conservatives" whose control of the GOP has distressed me in recent years, and taking the party away from them is the greatest need that Republicans like myself see in our political situation.

Let's face it. "Social conservatives" is just a code word for religious bigots, who have nothing in common with the kind of freedom of religion that this blog supports. And the sooner they can be evicted from positions of power in the Republican Party, the better it will be for all of us.

Let us just hope that the Giuliani supporters can hold their grounds. Rudy Giuliani will be the greatest thing that has happened to the Republican Party in many years, if we can get him nominated.